On Thursday, January 20, I listened to George W. Bush take the oath of office as President. He made many promises. One promise he did not make is to end the torture his administration has not only tolerated but facilitated. It left me wondering what his promises to uphold the law and fight for freedom and liberty really mean.
The United States has supposedly created new “democracies” in Afghanistan and Iraq, but these endeavors give democracy a bad name. Sure, the two countries have some ingredients of representative democracy, such as elected officials and a constitution. But both countries are still beset by grinding poverty, insurgencies, and entrenched militia forces that make the exercise of democracy either impractical or dangerous. Both countries have high numbers of foreign troops occupying their land and terrorizing the population while hunting “terrorists.” And both countries’ governments answer to their respective U.S. ambassador on most issues. In the midst of such a violent and coercive environment, Afghans are pressing ahead with the latest in a series of “democratic” exercises imposed by the United States: the first Afghan parliamentary elections in four decades will take place this Sunday, September 18. Even though many Afghans hope that the elections will empower them to end their troubles, the fear is that the elections will probably be as undemocratic in practice as every other U.S.-inflicted Afghan institution.
In his proposed “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” announced during last month’s State of the Union Address, President Bush promised, among other things, “a comprehensive plan [to] prevent seven million new HIV infections.” International organizations working to prevent the spread of HIV and improve women’s health worldwide met the announcement with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Hope because prevention is critical to reducing the toll of HIV worldwide. Skepticism because sound AIDS prevention depends on effective promotion of safe sex, an obvious area of contention for the Bush administration.
In January 2002, George W. Bush told us in his State of the Union Address: “The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free .…” Last month, in an October 11th statement, the president again congratulated himself: “We went into Afghanistan to free people, because we believe in freedom. We believe every life counts. Every life matters. So we’re helping people recover from living under years of tyranny and oppression. We’re helping Afghanistan claim its democratic future.”
In a recent address, President Bush declared, “A thriving nation will respect the rights of women, because no society can prosper while denying the opportunity to half its citizens.” The Arab Human Development Report, released in July, cited the lack of empowerment of women as one of the primary causes of the development gap between Arab countries and the rest of the world. Never before has the international community so strongly embraced the connection between the status of women’s human rights and the stability of a society as a whole.
In late July, President Bush cut off funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), deeming it guilty by association for abuses within China’s one-child family program, despite findings by the administration’s own investigative team that no such links exist. Yet while all the focus of public debate is on China and UNFPA, crucial issues about U.S. policies and the politics of reproduction in developing countries continue to be overlooked.
In a reversal of the oppressive Taliban era, educated Afghan women are using the elections to the upcoming Loya Jirga, or grand tribal council, to press for their civil rights. Many are now seeking a greater political and social role in Afghanistan, whereas until a few months ago women were virtual non-people.
Operation Enduring Freedom? By Ritu Sharma and Robert Gustafson November 1, 2001
On January 6, the U.S. released summaries of its proposals for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would extend NAFTA-type rules to 34 countries in the Western Hemisphere (with the notable exclusion of Cuba). A month later, the New York Times issued a series of articles describing how NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has changed the lives of poor families on the Mexico-U.S. border.